Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-11-04
That Opinion Again.

/ Chel-JuStlce WAITE himself no doubt
wrote the opinion in the cases of the
Chicago Anarchists In it he took pains
not to run counter to any previous deci-
sion OF the Supreme Court. The follow
Ing sentences tell to what extent that
court was granted jurisdiction i'll cases
decided in the highest State courts.
The Chief Justice says:
To give Us jurisdiction under section
700 of the Revised Statutes because OF
the denial by State court of any title,
night, privilege, or immunity claimed
under the Constitution or any treaty or
statute of the United States, 1t must ap-
pear that such title, right, privilege, or
immunity was especially set mp on
claimed at the proper time and in the
proper way. To be renewable the
| decision must be against the right 50 set
up or claimed As the Supreme Court
Of State was reviewing the decision of
/ the trial court, 10 make the question re-
vicWablc here it must appear that the
claim was made in that court because the
Supreme Court was only authorized to
review the judgment of that court for
errors committed there, and we can do
no more. This is not, rs seems TO be
supposed 10y one Of the counsel for the
petitioners, a question of the waiver of
q right under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States, but qucs-
ton of claim If not set up or claimed
in the proper court below the judgment
Of the State court in the ton Is con-
elusive so far as the right of review here
IS concerned.
The reader will desire to know how
section 100 Of the Revised Statutes reads,
We have seen it in no paper and SO We
quote it-as follows
See. 700. 4 final judgment or decree
in any suit in the highest court Of a
State in which decision in the suit
could be had. where is drawn III qucs-
tiOn the validity of a treatyor statute Of
or an authority exercised under, the
United States, 0itd the dcc{Sio" is
against HCir r0IidjtY. or where Is
drawn in question the validity OF
statute of, or an authority exercised uu- I.
der, any State on the ground of their
being repugnant to the Constitution,
treaties, or laws of the United States,
amt ihr dCcisi0R is in f0cOr II MCU .
or where any title, right, priyi-
lege, or immunity is claimed under the
or any treaty or statute Of,
or commissions held or authority cXer-
cisod under, the United States, 0y,d the
1cciSiou IS against tic title, right,
o. iDtMUtjty specially set up
or claimed by either party under
such Constitution, treaty, statute.
or authority, may be
re-cxamined and reversed or affirmed
in the Supreme Court upon writ of
error The writ sha.. have the same
effect as if the Judgment or decree com
planned of had been rendered or passed /
in a court of the United States, and the
upon the reversal shall be
the same except that the Supreme Court
may at their discretion proceed to final
decision of the case and award execution
or remand the same to the court from
which Ii was so removed
So far as the Chicago Ana chisis were
Concerned that section required
/. That the validity of the State law
should have been called in question i'll
he court below, and that it should have
been decided valid.
.. That they should have claimed
heir rights, privileges, and immunities
II the CONT below, and been refused
hem.
Neither OF these requirements was
.omplied with SO they lost their cases. t
The Virginia contempt cases did not J
90 up to the Supreme Court of the
United States under the law quoted "
hove, which applies only to eases taken /
ip from the State courts. o